THE CHANDLERS: the history of lies and distortion


  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com



July 1th, 2010

I am starting this new vindication season with some reflections on the Chandler family. This post was inspired by Ray Chandler’s interview with Larry King and was initially meant to cover that interview only. However while looking for information here and there some new details began to emerge and fuse together with the facts already known to me, thus forming a vast and colorful picture of falsehood and deception on the Chandlers’ part – a picture so huge that discussing every bit of it would need a separate post of its own.

Though being appalled by the amount of work to be done I decided to look into each episode piece by piece, thus making my longest post ever and probably the most challenging one too.

Ray Chandler’s interview may seem a strange choice to make a start with – but I asked myself, “Why not?” We need something to start with, so let it be the interview, especially since the technology of lies employed there seems to me rather vivid and obvious to everyone.

The interview will be provided almost in full with some comment on my part. If some information is already known to you, please have patience with it – we need all the facts to be grouped together, whether old or new…

And mind it that these are only preliminary conclusions which need to be supplemented in the future.

“I AM NO SPOKESMAN FOR THE FAMILY”


Larry King talked to Ray Chandler on November 25, 2003 which was a week after the surprise search visit of 70 policemen to Neverland. It was followed by Michael’s arrival home from Las Vegas the next day to ‘surrender’ to the authorities (Nov.20, 2003) and his later release on bail for some $3mln.

In connection with these recent events Larry is speaking to Ray Chandler about the past accusations:



KING: Joining us now is Ray Chandler, the uncle of the boy who accused Jackson back in 1993. Ray Chandler, by the way, is not speaking on behalf of the brother or his nephew, just as himself. They have a confidentiality agreement concerning the settlement of the case. It does not affect Ray Chandler, but he is not speaking on behalf of any of the parties.

It is both terribly wise and tale-telling to start a conversation with pointing out that Ray has nothing to do with the settlement agreement. The message thus sent to the public is that no one should ever, EVER think that Ray Chandler may be representing the family and that he is actually ACTING AS THEIR SPOKESMAN.

Why is it so top important for Ray Chandler’s name to be never linked with the names of the other Chandlers? Because both parties to the agreement (Evan, June, ‘Minor’ Jordan Chandler on the one side and Michael Jackson on the other side) were bound hand and foot by that document to never talk to journalists about the case. They could naturally speak up in court but under no circumstances could they discuss their mutual accusations (molestation and extortion) with the media and the press.

The agreement says about it:

“The Minor…, Evan Chandler and June Chandler, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree that they will not at any time in the future…enter into any contract…or other obligation, with any media, including…recording, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to Jackson in any capacity…Jackson’s relationship with the Minor or Evan Chandler or June Chandler, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action [Case], or the Claims” (this clause is followed by an identical clause for Jackson concerning the Chandlers).

Please remember that the above restrictions were for talking to the media only. A separate point of the agreement says that both parties can surely speak in court:

…the parties “agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action [Case] against Jackson… except as may be required by law
.

The fact that Ray Chandler wasn’t covered by the agreement is very much disputable as he can still be regarded as the family’s ‘agent’ and point 11 of the agreement concerns him directly as it says:

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Evan Chandler, June Chandler, the Minor’s attorneys of record in the Action and the Minor’s legal representatives, and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree to keep the terms and conditions of this confidential Settlement strictly confidential. Each of the aforementioned individuals agrees that they will not at any time disclose any information concerning the contents of this Confidential Settlement to anyone, including, without limitation any investigator (current or former), expert or consultant hired in connection with the Action, representative of any media, family members and friends; provided, however, that the Parties may make disclosures as may be necessary or required by law to tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or the consultant hired in connection with the Settlement Payment to the Minor as provided in paragraphs 3.?. (1}-(5) hereinabove.”

They should have stated Ray Chandler’s name directly in the document to make it known to him that he was also bound by the agreement, but failed to do it obviously thinking that any layman would be able to understand the message - let alone Ray Chandler who (by the time of this interview) had finished the Santa Barbara Law College and was already a lawyer. If Ray argues with us that his name was not mentioned in the agreement I will agree with him – same as the names of Jackson’s siblings were not mentioned there either.

Yes, it wasn’t Evan Chandler only who had a brother to speak at public forums. If all Michael Jackson’s brothers and sisters had been as talkative as Ray Chandler was the media would have been overwhelmed with stories about Chandlers’ extortion scheme and Michael’s relatives could have made an impressive presence at every TV show to state their case – if they had ever been invited there of course and if Michael had ever allowed them to do so, both of which I DOUBT very much indeed…

As far as I know Jackson’s side observed the terms of the agreement in an impeccable manner and the most Michael allowed himself was to say that he was innocent – however even that little was regarded by Evan Chandler as a breach of the agreement as a result of which he sued Michael again (this time for $60 mln.) and lost the case.



But let us go on with Ray Chandler’s interview:

KING: …And I understand you’re not in contact with your brother or nephew at all.

RAY CHANDLER: No. I haven’t spoken to them for quite a while. I haven’t talked since long before these allegations came out. They don’t know I’m here.

KING: Why? What happened?

CHANDLER: It’s sort of personal, but basically, it’s not that we don’t care for each other or love each other, but they’ve sort of kept to themselves. And every time since the Bashir interview, in February, you know…
KING: The interview with Jackson?

CHANDLER: Yes. Every time Jackson is in the media, it affects them quite severely.

KING: So you stay way.

CHANDLER: I stay away.


I am not surprised that Jordan Chandler is no longer on speaking terms with his uncle. Ray Chandler’s preparations for releasing his All that Glitters masterpiece are in full swing at the time of the interview. The book was written long time ago but is being updated now in connection with the new investigation opened against Jackson. It will be published in September 2004 and will contain sordid tales of Jordan’s alleged molestation as well as doubts about his sexual orientation.

Ray Chandler also claims that he hasn’t spoken to Evan Chandler for a long time and that his brother “doesn’t even know” that Ray is speaking to Larry King today… Whether this is true or not is not a matter of huge importance – what IS important though is the impression he is thus producing on the general public. Stating some kind of alienation or lack of contact between Ray and Evan is actually in the interests of both Chandler brothers.

Why so? Because this way the family is much better protected from suspicions that Evan Chandler could have anything to do with Ray Chandler’s book (now in preparation) and with his non-stop talk on TV and in the press. This way the risk of a possible legal action against Evan Chandler arising from breaking the agreement is becoming virtually non-existent or minimal thus safeguarding the family’s money and quiet – of course only on condition we share Ray Chandler’s opinion that he was not bound by the agreement…

Evan Chandler’s fear of losing money was largely unfounded, as the agreement says the family will receive the money in any case, even if they breach the agreement:

“Jackson’s obligation to make the Settlement Payment when due is absolute; notwithstanding any claimed or actual breach of the Confidential Settlement… Jackson shall not withhold any portion of the Settlement Payment”.

However if the fact of a breach is proven by the arbitration court the Chandlers can be requested to return some of the payments – which is a perfectly natural thing to do if they did violate the very essence of the agreement (i.e. the requirement never to speak to the media). So it was actually parting with the money already received which Evan Chandler was so terribly afraid of…

As Evan Chandler wanted both money and ‘talk’ and also a chance to get away with it, this was the exact reason why his brother Ray Chandler had to make all those “I-am-acting-on-my-own” passes before the interview and further manouvers about “not-talking-to-his-brother” business.

This was also the reason why Evan Chandler himself kept silence about Michael Jackson and why both brothers tried to act via a third party like Victor Gutierrez to see what happens to him as a result of their trial test.

Well, the experiment showed that Victor was sued for his lies about Jackson and had to file for bankrupcy and flee the country not to pay $2,7mln. in damages. This outcome somehow chilled the Chandlers’ ardor for several years – money was always a powerful argument for these guys…

Now HOW DO I KNOW that Evan Chandler was party to the plan to kill two birds with one stone – I mean, take the money and talk? How dare I make such allegations with no evidence proving my point? Shouldn’t we refrain from repeating someone else’s malicious hearsay?

Yes, we should – only this information is not hearsay but an established fact. I don’t know why no one has yet paid attention to it but Ray Chandler SPOKE about his brother’s involvement in the project HIMSELF and was quite OPEN about it too.

See what Josh Mankiewicz of Dateline NBC writes about his interview with Ray Chandler on the eve of the release of All That Glitters book
(source : Inside look at 1993 Jackson case)



“Now for the first time the boy’s father talks about his son’s relationship with Michael Jackson. That comes not from third parties or court records, but from the father’s own lips, from portions of private audio tapes that have never before been heard outside his family. Ray Chandler had no part of the multimillion dollar deal between his brother’s family and Michael Jackson, but he was at his older brother’s side as the scandal broke, and he sometimes recorded private conversations between the two as the family was pulled deeper and deeper into the international fury. Ray says his brother knew the conversations were being recorded because even then, Ray Chandler was laying the groundwork for a book.

Mankiewicz: “You tape recorded a number of conversations with your brother?”
Chandler: “There were some conversations that we taped in order to preserve ideas in order to preserve what had happened”.


Using notes, documents, and those recordings he says he made in 1993, before his family’s settlement with Jackson, Ray Chandler has written and self-published “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up,” the story of his family’s struggle with Michael Jackson”.


Sure Ray Chandler collected all those materials before the settlement – otherwise he wouldn’t have had a chance to offer the book immediately after the trial. Judith Regan says that Ray Chandler approached her with a book proposal before ‘the ink was even dry” on the agreement:

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson…. He said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”

Later Ray Chandler would present his failure with the publishers and the need to self-publish the book in a totally different way. See what his says about it in the same 2004 interview with Josh Mankiewicz:

Ray Chandler: “…look, you know, if money were my motive, I could have gone to a major publisher and gotten a big fat advance. ( if any of them had agreed to pay it which they didn’t). But if I had done that, I wouldn’t be able to publish the book that I wanted to publish.”

Mankiewicz: “Because a major publisher wouldn’t have been willing to put in print the charges that your are making?”

Chandler: “When it comes to Michael Jackson, people are still afraid.” (afraid of the man who was humiliated beyond any measure by being photographed naked and drug through the mud by every newspaper and every willing maid or bodyguard whom the media paid to? Come on, Ray…)


Mankiewicz further makes an important note:

“Chandler argues that father and son at first cooperated with a criminal investigation, even AFTER they settled their civil suit with Jackson. But as time wore on, criminal charges against Jackson were never filed (why not, I wonder, if Jordan willingly cooperated with them? Didn’t the authorities like his declaration?), and the family received numerous death threats.

Chandler says the boy and his father asked to be placed in the witness-protection program and that when that request was denied, the family stopped cooperating with investigators”.


After making a round of publishers and realizing that none of them were willing to participate in a breach-of-the-agreement process the Chandler brothers refrained from publishing All That Glitters in 1994 (apparently deciding in favor of Victor Gutierrez’s variant instead) and withdrew the book until after the new allegations against Jackson arose in 2003. Now that the singer’s hands were full with new accusations it was just the right time to burden him with the past woes too. Defamatory information was in so much demand then that all previous fears of breaching the agreement could be now (cautiously) disregarded:



KING: Then how much do you know about the events of 10 years ago?

RAY CHANDLER: I was — I know a lot about the events of 10 years ago. When it first became public, it was August 17th, 1993. About three or four days later, I got a call from my brother he was crying. I’d never heard my brother cry. He is very strong man. He had just been beat up walking into his — in the lobby of his office building he’s a dentist. And he was crying, he was sobbing. I packed up — I live in Santa Barbara, he was in L.A. I packed up some close real quick, went down there. I was there for almost six months just before the settlement was signed in January of 1994.

KING: Do you think he was beat up in connection with it?

CHANDLER: I don’t think — we don’t know — I wasn’t there. He – we believe it was actually tabloid media who did it. He got smacked in the back of the head. The guy in front of him had a camera. He thinks they were trying to slow him down, but he was really bruised.


I didn’t know that the ferocious Evan Chandler who wanted to ‘turn Michael’s life into a massacre’ was such a frightened little fawn. What is this soap opera all about? Is it a subtle hint to explain why Ray Chandler stayed at his brother’s place and worked for six months on a tell-all book together with him? Okay, okay… let us not be petty and mean… the poor guy was beaten up… with a camera…by a tabloid journalist…fortunately not by fans… It is really a big relief to learn that it wasn’t Michael’s fans who were responsible for ‘beating up’ Evan Chandler and with an expensive camera too. But at another point of the interview Ray Chandler presents Michael’s fans in a somewhat more sinister light:


KING: There were death threats to the family?

CHANDLER: There were lots of death threats.

KING: By fans, I assume.

CHANDLER: Yeah. By fans. It’s funny. You know, again, not funny but you know, here we are now with terrorism, something that Americans know about. Michael Jackson has a corps of fans. And those that want to march and support of him in Europe, fine, that’s their right. There’s a hard core group, there was and probably still is, of fanatical fans who see him as a deity, and they will — some of them will go to any lengths that, you know, there’s some who will just go as far as threatening, there’s some who will go — who will be violent, and you know, you never know how far it is going to go.


Well, I am aware that not all Michael’s fans are peaceful darlings, but the danger they presented to the Chandler family seems a little too exaggerated – after all, nothing terrible ever happened to Arvizos, didn’t it? Even though their real names were displayed all over the internet? Despite the police efforts to conceal their identity and call them the fictitious Doe names up to the year 2005? Aha, so the police did try to provide witness protection for Arvizos? Which didn’t work much though – but in spite of that there was no harm ever done to the accusers’ family either then or now? Ridiculous as it might seem but Ray Chandler CLAIMS in full seriousness that the DEATH THREATS from Michael’s fans were the ONLY reason why the family REFUSED TO TESTIFY in court.

Thank you, Ray, for never saying a lie that the confidentiality agreement was in the way to your nephew’s testimony – evidently this version would have been so outrageous that it was too much even for Ray Chandler (though some haters are still praying to this theory). No, Ray Chandler named Jackson’s fans as the SOLE REASON for the family never going to court:


Good Morning America

December 6, 2004: abc news “One of the biggest myths that has been perpetrated since then is that the family refused [to cooperate with prosecutors],” Ray Chandler said in an exclusive interview today.

“They only refused because they requested protection. They wanted to be put in witness protection program, and that request was refused.”

The uncle of the alleged victim said the family decided not to pursue a criminal case against Jackson because of the multiple death threats received from his fans. The family, he said, was primarily concerned about its personal safety.

“Jackson fans had flown in from Europe and Los Angeles and had come to the father’s office, had phoned in bomb threats as late as April 1994, four months after it [the case] was settled,” Chandler said. “The father was forced to leave his dental practice because his staff and his partner would no longer allow him in there because fans were coming to the office. It was a very serious threat.”

“Michael could have made a statement asking his fans to back off,” Chandler said. “I’m sure he must have been aware of the pressure on the family. But I don’t think he was organizing it, no.”

Chandler said his nephew, who is now in his mid-20s, has recovered from his ordeal because he received a lot of therapy very quickly. “He dealt with that very quickly and he’s fine. … This family (in the current Jackson case) is being very well-protected, very well-sequestered. They are going to need protection after this is over, and they are going to need a lot of help.”


So Ray Chandler knows that the Arvizos are being very well-protected… But if the protection is so good THIS TIME why doesn’t Jordan Chandler testify NOW? By the way Ray Chandler will also be subpoenaed to speak up at the 2005 trial (and by Michael’s defense team by the way). The defense will ask him to speak as a ‘custodian’ of valuable documents which he said his book was based on – but nothing came of it as far as I know, except that Ray Chandler complained to Diane Dimond about having been harassed by Michael’s lawyers.

In the TV “TODAY” interview below Ray Chandler does not yet know about his own future subpoena to the trial, but even without the need to answer that evidently difficult question for him he is clearly being uncomfortable about the plain and easy question why his nephew is refusing to testify in court.

In this interview Ray Chandler announces Jordan’s decision for the first time (I’ve tried to make a transcript of it as best as I could – please correct):

MATT LAUER’S INTERVIEW WITH RAY CHANDLER

See video: Past Jackson charges

March 28, 2005 Matt Lauer: Do you think the fact of that previous case should be admitted with the current trial?

Ray Chandler: Well, I think some of the fact should be submitted (?) to the judge… but there is some very damaging evidence. That is of course the reason why Michael Jackson settled. He likes to claim that, you know, he just wanted to get on with his life but as I detailed in my book, piece by piece, evidence by evidence, it was an amount of evidence which finally made him give up.

Q. If he were to testify in the current trial how damaging in your opinion would his words be?

A. Well, let me just say it here today that my nephew is not going to testify.

Q. Let’s talk about it, because we heard the reports that he did not want to testify but we’ve not heard any definitive statement on that.

A. Well, this is the definitive statement. He is not going to show up. He is out of the country where he cannot be found. He doesn’t want to be a Michael Jackson boy. He doesn’t want the involvement.

Q. So even if he is subpoenaed by the prosecution he will not return to this country to testify?

A. Whether the prosecution subpoenaes him or not, I don’t know, but I can tell you he’s not dropping (?) in for this trial.

Q. What are his reasons?

A. …He is sick of it. I’ll be honest with you, he’s hounded by the media, he’s had to move several times and because of being Michael Jackson’s… he doesn’t want to be the Michael Jackson kid any more.

Q. How do you feel about that decision?

A. ….I think his testimony would be crucial to this case.

Q. And have you spoken to him directly about that?

A. No, I have not.

Q. His parents, I would imagine have been in constant contact with him. How do they feel about it? How does the mother feel about it?

A. You know, I don’t know how his mother feels about it. I could tell you I am pretty sure his mother can be called to testify and give some very damaging evidence.

Q. What would she say?

A. She’s got to be able to place her son in the bedroom with Michael Jackson at about conservatively 50 or 60 nights, so this is not just an impromptu sleep, this is a relationship in her home for 30 nights, in Michael Jackson’s apartment in Los Angeles, at Neverland, in hotels in Las Vegas, New York, Paris, Monaco, every night, night after night alone in the bedroom, so that can be very damaging.

Q. Alone in the bedroom, spending time together. Did she ever witness any sexual act between Michael Jackson and her son?

A. To my knowledge, no.

Q. I’m curious. Your nephew doesn’t feel any obligation to testify even considering that perhaps it might prevent future victims?

A. I think it was probably a very tough decision for him to weigh both sides. But obviously the side that he doesn’t want to be involved and he doesn’t want to be the Michael Jackson boy, have the picture taken… obviously he wants to move on with his life.

Q. Does he feel any guilt about his decision.. does the family feel any guilt that perhaps had they testified in the criminal investigation or trial then this current case could have been avoided?

A. You know the decision was not really his at the time because he was a child. It was a family decision, the parents’ decision, but actually that’s one of the biggest myths that stuck around for 12 years – that they refused to testify in the criminal trial. Actually they agreed to testify in the criminal trial provided they’d be given witness protection. The death threats were so serious – you know, animals with their heads cut off left at the door, telephone threats coming in, people trying to get into the house, into the place of business, bomb threats… Last year a spokesperson for the LAD (?) office confirmed that in fact the request was made and then denied. Had it been approved and had they got the protection the criminal trial would have got forward.

Q. Michael Jackson’s side says that these cases are all about money. People try to get money from Michael Jackson. By now not agreeing or refusing to pariticipate in this current trial do you think your nephew risks that allegation cropping up again? That he was willing to settle out of court for money and was not willing to go to the criminal process?

A. Right. Of course this is an allegation. That’s one of the reasons I’d like him to testify and obviously to prevent other boys from spending night alone with Michael Jackson. That’s the most important thing. My nephew has his own concerns and they are a priority to him.

Q. Let’s make sure we understand the headline that comes out of this interview. You’re guaranteeing that your nephew, the alleged victim in the 1993 sexual molestation case against Michael Jackson will refuse to testify in the current criminal trial?

A. That’s what I am saying. Barring piffany (?) on his part…sort of revelation that he’s wrong… change his mind.. but yes…

Q. He is not in the country at this point where the prosecution can try to reach him?

A. No, he is not.

ISN’ IT CLEAR now from both this interview and the talk with Josh Mankiewicz that there were negotiations with the family about their participating in the criminal process even after the settlement agreement and that they even “agreed to take part” in it according to Ray Chandler?

ISN’T IT SOMETHING NEW and DIFFERENT from what the prosecutor always told us that it wasn’t Jordan’s decision not to testify in the criminal investigation but the decision of his parents?

ISN’T IT RIDICULOUS to claim that the powerful District Attorney Tom Sneddon was unable to provide any ‘protection’ for the Chandlers from whatever people the family was afraid of – though he was in desperate need of Jordan’s testimony and repeatedly said that lack of cooperation on his part was the only reason why the criminal case fell apart in 1994?

ISN’T IT IMPORTANT for us to have a comfirmation, this time from Ray Chandler as a member of the family, of what we’ve known all along – that June Chandler never saw anything suspicious between Michael and her son despite the recent ‘evidence’ obtained from our newly-emerging ’witness’?

ISN’T IT FUNNY that the man who was supposed to talk neither to Jordan nor to his brother Evan “for a long time’ was selected as a spokesman for the family to officially announce the crucial news about his nephew’s decision not to go to court?

THE FIRST MEETING

Now the interview Larry King’s talk with RAY CHANDLER on November 25, 2003 is taking us to the circumstances under which Michael Jackson met Jordan Chandler for the first time:



KING: Give me as best as you can remember the circumstances under which Michael befriended your nephew?

CHANDLER: Well, it was a simple twist of fate, really. Michael was driving down (unintelligible) Boulevard incognito and — as he would often do to go out without getting mobbed, his car stalled. He was having car trouble. An office worker on the side saw a man in trouble, asked if she could help. He said, yes. Going up to the floor in an elevator. She realized who it was and he said, yes, I’m Michael Jackson. She said, you know, my husband works for a car rental company, this was Rent-a-Wreck in Santa Monica. I’m sure they’d be glad to help you. Well, she called and her husband’s boss was my nephew’s step brother. My brother and mother were separated, had different (unintelligible). And he said, yes, I’ll send a limo for him, I’ll send a tow truck and then called his wife and said you’ll never guess who’s coming down here. Bring the kids down. KING: That’s how they met?

CHANDLER: That’s how they met. Michael took the boy’s phone number.

KING: Took it right there? The mother no complaint about or stepfather had no complaint of the taking of the number by Jackson? There was no reason to think of anything?

CHANDLER: No, at that point it was very innocent. Or seemed innocent.


What an outrageous way to discuss the innocent procedure of getting anybody’s telephone! If they go on in the same manner they will soon describe a simple handshake as a sign of an abuse! The way they speak of this ‘taking the boy’s number’ issue it looks really sinister – something like “a sexual predator spotting an easy prey and unsuspecting parents falling into his trap”. Why would Larry King ask this crazy question about the mother and stepfather not complaining about Jackson taking their number? Had Michael’s reputation been harmed so irreparably by the time of the interview that Larry couldn’t even imagine the way the exchange of telephones would have taken place back in the 90s, if someone had had a chance meeting with a star like Michael Jackson then?

Well, to be able to see the way it really happened let us compare the accounts of the first meeting made by three different members of the family – Ray Chandler, Jordan Chandler and his mother June Chandler.



As to Ray’s/Larry’s story we are already familiar with their sinister version, so let’s see what JUNE CHANDLER has to say about that telephone incident ( see her testimony at the 2005 trial): Q. …do you recall how long you were with Mr. Jackson and Jordan that day?

A. Briefly. Five minutes. Ten minutes.

Q. And did — was there any information exchanged between you and Mr. Jackson that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. I said, “If you would like to see Jordie or if he could call you or if you’d like to speak to him, here is our number, and you can give him a call.”

Q. And you gave that to Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, let me go back in time. Before this meeting that you had at your husband’s place of business in 1992, had Jordan ever expressed, to your knowledge, some admiration for Mr. Jackson?

A. Oh, very much so, yes.


And this is how JORDAN CHANDLER describes the same situation in his talk with psychiatrist Dr. Gardner in October 1993 .

- My stepfather took him [Michael] outside to choose a car for him to use. And I guess when my stepfather was outside he said, ‘You don’t have to pay for the car if you just take Jordie’s number and give him a call’.

- Why would your stepfather say that?

- Because my stepfather knows I was interested in Michael Jackson and his music.

- And this was in your presence?

- No. I was told this by my stepfather.

Wait, are these three stories about one and the same thing or are they about three different events? Would you know that these people were describing one and the same episode if I hadn’t told you in advance? And what do you think of the cool and matter-of-fact version by June Chandler who seems to be emphasizing the idea that Michael “CAN give the boy a call” – as if she were the boss of the situation, weren’t thrilled by this chance encounter and weren’t looking forward to Michael calling them back at all?

Interesting how this small example gives you an insight into the character of each of the people involved in this play?

I don’t know which variant is preferable to you – to me Jordan’s version seems to be the most credible of all. It is only natural to imagine the excitement of their first meeting and the lucky chance taken by dear old David Shwartz who asked Michael for a favor – call my stepson, who is your diehard fan, and I’ll give you a car free in exchange for it… No wonder Michael thought he was somehow bound by that goodwill gesture, kept his promise and called the boy back.

Oh, my God – how far is the real story from that sinister innuendoes we’ve just seen in Ray Chandler’s interview!

If the whole of his “All that Glitters” book is slanted in the same manner (which I never doubt for a second) and if the book is not a deliberate attempt to drug Michael through all this mud and the feeling displayed by the author is genuine (which I do doubt very much indeed) it means that we are at best looking into Ray or Evan Chandler’s own dark world of dirty suspicion, ill motivation, evil thought and cynical behavior…

To make the picture of the first meeting complete let me quote to you the remainder of Jordan’s conversation with psychiatrist Dr. Gardner about the period following their chance meeting in May 1992 – just to give you some insight into Jordan’s character too.

But before that here is what Ray Chandler writes in his book about Jordan’s adulation for Michael Jackson even before he met him in person:


“By age 6 Jordie had memorized the words to half a dozen Jackson songs and taught himself many of the star’s dance moves. One evening Jordie generated in instant crowd when he launched into his MJ routine to the sound of Beat It blasting from a radio Dave had bought.”Wow, look at him go”, one onlooker shouted as she threw a dollar into the hat that Dave had jokingly placed on the ground. Two weeks before his 8th birthday Jordan strutted his stuff for the entire family. No sooner had he hit the dance floor when a circle gathered around the boy, three generations whooping and cheering as he twirled and moon-walked to The Way You Make Me Feel. Jordie’s grandmother was so impressed she went home that evening and knitted him a sequined glove to add to his routine.”

And this is how the same boy recounts to the psychiatrist the phone calls that followed his first meeting with Michael Jackson in the period from May 1992 to February 1993 when he met him again:

- My stepfather took him [Michael] outside to choose a car for him to use. And I guess when my stepfather was outside he said, ‘You don’t have to pay for the car if you just take Jordie’s number and give him a call’.
- Why would your stepfather say that?
- Because my stepfather knows I was interested in Michael Jackson and his music.
- And this was in your presence?
- No. I was told this by my stepfather.
- “So what happened then?”-

- “Then he left.”

- “Did he agree to the deal, Jackson?”

Yeah.”

- “Okay, then what happened?”

- “I don’t remember how many days later, but he called me.”

- “What did he say?”

- “He said… I don’t really remember, but I remember the conversations we had on the phone around the early days of our relationship.”

- “That was the beginning of the relationship, is that correct?”

- “Right.”

- “How long did the first call last?”

- “I don’t remember. I don’t remember the very first call.”

- “In this first phase, let’s call it the telephone call phase. I would like to try to break it down into phases. This first phase was started around May of ’92; that phase which was confined just to telephone calls. How long did that phase last?”

- “I would say sometime in late January of this year [1993].”

- “How often were the calls during this phase?”

- “Well, see, he went on tour during the summer so that was when I got off of school, so I would say June or so. But before that he called – - I don’t know, I don’t want to guess wrong. I don’t know.”

- “If you could guess the total number of calls during that first phase, over that seven or eight month period?”

- “I don’t know. Do you think I could tell you – get more specific in the phase – and let’s see there? So, well, I remember – - he called over there at my dad’s house but my step-father had gave him my mom’s number.”

- “You were living primarily with your mother at that point.”

- “Yes.”

- “Okay.”

- “And so, I assume he – - I can’t really remember but I assume he was used to calling my mother’s house. And so he called my dad’s house. I don’t know, I think my mother gave him the number. We spoke for, I remember, for like three hours.”

- “You had conversations for three hours?”

- “Well, that one call.”

- “There was one phone call for three-hours; we’re talking about the telephone phase now.”

- “Well, I’m trying to be specific and then when I’m finished – -

- “Was it all in that time frame now, I want to stick with that time frame?”

- “Right, I know, well I have to remember what happened.”

- “Sure, but I’m going to interrupt you to clarify. Was there more than one three-hour telephone call during the telephone phase?”

- “Yes.”

- “About how many, roughly, were there?”

- “I don’t know, it could be – - ”

- “More than ten? Was it roughly 5-10 such calls to the best of your ability? Would that be an accurate statement?”

(Inaudible.)

- “Okay, that’s all. I don’t expect you to (inaudible) but if you could narrow it down to a rough guess and we’re able to indicate that that’s a guess then that’s fine.”

- “Okay, well – - – - ”


What impression does Jordan Chandler produce on you here? STRANGELY UNEMOTIONAL, INDIFFERENT, DISINTERESTED, BORED AND A LITTLE BOSSY, isn’t he? Why is he that way?

Is it because he is forced to play some kind of a role? And understands his importance too?

And isn’t it surprising that when speaking to FBI agents ten years later he would refuse to testify, saying something which would strangely remind us of this role ?

“I’m not interested in testifying against Michael Jackson. I’VE DONE MY PART”





Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!








TOP